Teen’s plea deal raises questions about youth, adult courts
Image courtesy of Adobe Stock
When young defendants accept plea deals in adult criminal court, do they fully understand the rights they are giving up?
That question is at the center of a New York case that has drawn the attention of Arizona State University psychologist Melanie Fessinger, whose research examines how people make decisions in the legal system.
In this case, a teenager accepted a plea agreement that included a lengthy prison sentence and a waiver of his right to appeal his case later.
A traffic stop, then a prison sentence
In June 2023, Javyon Ogden was arrested on outstanding warrants during a traffic stop near Rochester, New York. Less than a month later, he accepted a plea bargain that sent him to prison for a term that could last into his 30s.
Although Ogden was underage at the time of the original offense, his case was not handled in juvenile court. Instead, he was prosecuted in adult criminal court, where the penalties were more severe and the consequences of a guilty plea more lasting.
That decision is now central to his appeal. Ogden argues that he should not have been treated as an adult and that his plea should not prevent him from challenging how his case was handled.
The power of the plea bargain
In the U.S., defendants have the right to be judged by a jury of their peers. But only about 1 in 20 criminal cases actually goes to trial, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The vast majority are resolved through negotiated plea bargains, often involving fewer or lesser charges in exchange for a guilty plea.
Plea bargaining helps courts manage overwhelming caseloads. But Fessinger, an assistant professor of psychology in the New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, says the process may have become “too efficient.”
Plea deals can be completed just minutes after a defendant’s first meeting with a lawyer. In that whirlwind legal process, accused people may feel pressured to accept a deal without fully understanding what they are agreeing to and before fully weighing their options, the evidence against them or the long-term consequences of a conviction.
A juvenile in adult court
Ogden admitted to being the underage getaway driver in a burglary during which the victim was injured by his co-defendants. Under the legal principle that all participants can be held responsible for the outcomes of a crime, he initially faced more than a dozen charges that could have added up to decades in prison.
Instead, in adult court, he accepted a plea deal. He admitted guilt to two charges, accepted a 12-year prison sentence and waived his right to appeal.
In August 2026, the American Psychological Association filed an amicus brief in support of Ogden’s effort to appeal, with ASU's Fessinger contributing to the filing. The brief argues that adolescent brain development bears directly on whether a young person can fully understand the consequences of accepting a plea deal, including a lengthy adult prison sentence and the loss of appeal rights.
“Why do so many people knowingly give away their constitutional rights to trial or appeal, especially when the stakes are so high?” Fessinger asks.
That question is part of her research in the Psychological and Legal Process Lab in The School of Interdisciplinary Forensics on ASU's West Valley campus.
Appealing the right to appeal
Ogden’s case now turns on a complicated legal question: Can he appeal the decision to keep his case in adult court even if he broadly waived his rights to appeal when he pleaded guilty?
His challenge reaches beyond his own sentence. It asks whether a juvenile defendant prosecuted in adult court can meaningfully waive major constitutional rights through a plea agreement, especially when developmental research shows that adolescents differ from adults in decision-making, evaluation of risk and susceptibility to pressure.
For Fessinger, the case reflects a broader concern about how young defendants navigate a legal system built largely on assumptions that are even questionable for adults.
A system built on pressure
In the criminal justice system, people accused of crimes are often thrust into a no-win situation. Prosecutors may initially file every possible count, then offer to drop some charges in exchange for a quick guilty plea.
If the accused person chooses to fight the charges at trial, they risk a much harsher penalty if convicted. And according to Fessinger, most trials do result in convictions. In federal court, about 9 out of 10 trials end that way.
“So it makes sense that defendants look at the odds and accept a plea bargain,” she says, “even when they are innocent of the accusations.”
When innocent people plead guilty
False guilty pleas are difficult to count because plea cases are rarely reviewed. Once someone admits guilt, the legal system generally treats the case as resolved.
“We just don’t know how many innocent people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because those cases are rarely reexamined. But the research and existing data show us that it’s not zero,” Fessinger says.
One glimpse into the scale of false convictions comes from exoneration data. The National Registry of Exonerations reports that 15% of known exonerees had earlier pleaded guilty. That does not mean 15% of all plea bargains involve innocent defendants; rather, it is the share among people later proven innocent.
But with about 2 million people incarcerated in the U.S., and many more on supervised release, Fessinger says the number of false guilty pleas is not insignificant.
Jailing innocent people is not only a gross miscarriage of justice for the accused and their families. It also can end the search for the real perpetrator, leaving that person free to commit more crimes in the community, she says.
Searching for a middle ground
The challenge, Fessinger says, is finding a way to reduce the pressure on accused people to plead guilty to crimes without overwhelming courts with trials.
That question drives her work.
“I don’t yet know what the solution is,” she says, “but there has to be a middle ground between the existing system that pressures even innocent people into pleading guilty and bringing every single case to trial.”
For now, Ogden remains incarcerated at Wende Correctional Facility, a maximum-security prison near Buffalo, New York, while his appeal moves slowly through the justice system. His release date is set for 2033.
More Law, journalism and politics
ASU national security expert explains missteps since 9/11 attacks
The war against terror immediately after the 9/11 attacks had clear goals that were quickly accomplished, but has been followed by many missteps in the 25 years since, according to an Arizona State…
ASU to honor ESPN duo with 43rd Walter Cronkite Award of Excellence in Journalism
Arizona State University is set to honor ESPN sports journalists Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon with the 43rd Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism.Each year, the Walter Cronkite…
Initiative brings Arizona cities and towns together to tackle shared challenges
Municipalities are inundated with data. Police and fire department activity, water usage, development permits, traffic incidents, pavement conditions and resident service requests generate a steady…